Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

[Gamera]

…The Church used to put it like this: The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra:… "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

So far I haven’t found anything on line that says any “ex cathedra” teachings were issued in this bull. Why do you keep saying this bull is “ex cathedra”?

 

[Steven_Merten]

So far I haven’t found anything on line that says any “ex cathedra” teachings were issued in this bull. Why do you keep saying this bull is “ex cathedra”?

Hello Gamera,

Are you saying that Pope Eugene IV was a heritic and his Bull from the counsil of Florence (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra) is heresy?

Has Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI officially condemned Pope Eugene IV’s “Cantate Domino,” 1441 as herisy? The (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra) was at the end of the Bull quoted. Is this false?

Is it the deal where we cannot claim Pope John Paul II’s new Catechism is “ex cathedra” and “infailible” if we cannot also claim, at the same time, that the old Catechism of Pope Eugene IV is “ex cathadra” and “infailible” also?

When comparing the two extremly different veiws of Pope John Paul II and Pope Eugene, how can we claim that this is the work of the Holy Spirit guiding us to clarity in the understanding the same exact will of God for all times?

I understand that Pope Eugene IV lived in a time of caos and schism. Pope Eugene IV needed Catholics to go off and preach the gospel of Jesus in far off pagan lands where they would be persecuted and killed for bringing salvation to the pagans. I understand that Pope John Paul II lived in an era where the whole world already generally knows of the gospel of Jesus. In Pope John Paul II era, to use “no salvation outside the Church” as Pope Eugene once did, now only causes judgemental hatred between Catholics and non-Catholics.

I am not sure we have to judge either camp, the Pope Eugene IV camp or the Pope John Paul II camp, as heritics. I am not sure we have to jam either concept down the throat of the other concept. I am not sure we have to demand that educated people accept that both Pope Eugene IV and Pope John Paul II are presenting the same exact concept.

In the old days Catholic priests sacrificed their lives to bring the gospel of Jesus to the pagans for their salvation. This is good. In present days Catholics should not condemn all Protestants as going to hell. This is good. The Catechism of the Catholic Church changing with the needs of the times can be a good thing.

It seems we are now just stumbling over the ridgid desire to try and explain everything with the words “infailibility” and “ex cathadra”. Jesus left us with live leadership through the Succession of Popes. Let us not allow dead Pope’s, but live Pope’s to lead Christ’s Church as Christ left us with a live Pope after He died and asended into heaven. Possibly the ridgid terms “infailibility” and “ex cathadra”, on Church documents, piling up for two thosand years, of Popes doing what was right for their times, does not leave any breathing room for live Popes to do what is right in their time.

 

[Gamera]

Hello Gamera,

Are you saying that Pope Eugene IV was a heritic and his Bull from the counsil of Florence (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra) is heresy?

Has Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI officially condemned Pope Eugene IV’s “Cantate Domino,” 1441 as herisy? The (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra) was at the end of the Bull quoted. Is this false?

Is it the deal where we cannot claim Pope John Paul II’s new Catechism is “ex cathedra” and “infailible” if we cannot also claim, at the same time, that the old Catechism of Pope Eugene IV is “ex cathadra” and “infailible” also?

When comparing the two extremly different veiws of Pope John Paul II and Pope Eugene, how can we claim that this is the work of the Holy Spirit guiding us to clarity in the understanding the same exact will of God for all times?

I understand that Pope Eugene IV lived in a time of caos and schism. Pope Eugene IV needed Catholics to go off and preach the gospel of Jesus in far off pagan lands where they would be persecuted and killed for bringing salvation to the pagans. I understand that Pope John Paul II lived in an era where the whole world already generally knows of the gospel of Jesus. In Pope John Paul II era, to use “no salvation outside the Church” as Pope Eugene once did, now only causes judgemental hatred between Catholics and non-Catholics.

I am not sure we have to judge either camp, the Pope Eugene IV camp or the Pope John Paul II camp, as heritics. I am not sure we have to jam either concept down the throat of the other concept. I am not sure we have to demand that educated people accept that both Pope Eugene IV and Pope John Paul II are presenting the same exact concept.

In the old days Catholic priests sacrificed their lives to bring the gospel of Jesus to the pagans for their salvation. This is good. In present days Catholics should not condemn all Protestants as going to hell. This is good. The Catechism of the Catholic Church changing with the needs of the times can be a good thing.

It seems we are now just stumbling over the ridgid desire to try and explain everything with the words “infailibility” and “ex cathadra”. Jesus left us with live leadership through the Succession of Popes. Let us not allow dead Pope’s, but live Pope’s to lead Christ’s Church as Christ left us with a live Pope after He died and asended into heaven. Possibly the ridgid terms “infailibility” and “ex cathadra”, on Church documents, piling up for two thosand years, of Popes doing what was right for their times, does not leave any breathing room for live Popes to do what is right in their time.

No, Sir, I never called any pope a “heretic.” All I did was ask a question. Why do you keep writing “ex cathedra” and “infallible” when quoting a bull which, by all appearances, was not ex cathedra and not infallible.

You do understand that not every papal bull constitutes an “ex cathedra” or “infallible” statement, right?

And for the record, Pope John Paul II never once made any “ex cathedra” or “infallible” statement.

 

[anamchara]

There is salvation outside the Church, period.

That was an interesting Post Dan Man on JPII. Thanks.

 

[anamchara]

There is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation outside of Christ.
Christ is the One mediator and one savior and one redeemer.

Most certainly non-Catholics can be saved. But only if they are incorporated into the body somehow, and persevere in charity. The Church doesn’t say how many in fact are.
I think it is probably acceptable for one to believe that the number of non-catholics that actually are saved can be anywhere from 0% to 100% and still consider ones self an orthodox Catholic.

Dan, First you say there isn’t salvation then you say there can be. It’s possible I have mis-read your post but this didn’t make a great deal of sense to me.

 

[Steven_Merten]

What the HECK are you talking about?

No, Sir, I never called any pope a “heretic.” All I did was ask you a question. Why do you keep writing “ex cathedra” and “infallible” when quoting a bull which, by all appearances, was not ex cathedra and not infallible.

You do understand that not every papal bull constitutes an “ex cathedra” or “infallible” statement, right?

And for the record, Pope John Paul II never once made any “ex cathedra” or “infallible” statement.

Hello Gamera,

The whole “infalibility” concept is confusing to many Catholics. I have seen a number of threads asking for lists of infailible papal statments. Some reply that there are only, I think three, one being perhaps the concept of papal infailibility itself, a few hundred years ago. Some others reply that all Bulls and Church ecumenicals are infailible.

Can you give me a link to a Church list of infailible papal statments? It seems that such a list does not exist or that there is much confusion and different opinions on what is infailible and what is not infailible.

 

[John_Higgins]

Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Let’s see if the mods will set up and EENS forum and keep all of this in one place.

I can see it now—

Unam Sanctam ----- Vatican II

Cantate Domino — CCC

“It’s infallible!” ---- “No it’s not!!!”

“They’re inside the Church.” — “No they’re not!”

Blah, blah, blah.

John

 

[Gamera]

Hello Gamera,

The whole “infalibility” concept is confusing to many Catholics. I have seen a number of threads asking for lists of infailible papal statments. Some reply that there are only, I think three, one being perhaps the concept of papal infailibility itself, a few hundred years ago. Some others reply that all Bulls and Church ecumenicals are infailible.

Can you give me a link to a Church list of infailible papal statments? It seems that such a list does not exist or that there is much confusion and different opinions on what is infailible and what is not infailible.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was formally defined at Vatican I as follows: “The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra … possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith and morals” (PA 4). That’s it. “Defining” is all which can ever receive the protection of infallibility — not teaching or preaching or anything else. Popes never can exercise infallibility in any way other than in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.

So for this papal bull you cite to be an “ex cathedra” and “infallible” statement, as you keep claiming, then it must contain a definition of a doctrine of faith and morals — and even then, the infallibility applies only to the actual definition, not to the surrounding text.

So far, online I have found nothing to indicate that any infallible statements at all are contained within “Cantano Domino.” So again I must ask, where did you get the claim that this quotation is “ex cathedra” and “infallible?” What is your source?

 

[anamchara]

Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Let’s see if the mods will set up and EENS forum and keep all of this in one place.

I can see it now—

Unam Sanctam ----- Vatican II

Cantate Domino — CCC

“It’s infallible!” ---- “No it’s not!!!”

“They’re inside the Church.” — “No they’re not!”

Blah, blah, blah.

John

It is pretty silly isn’t it!

Hey John, I work on my family roots as well just saw that on your profile. Off topic moment.

 

[Image_of_God]

The doctrine of papal infallibility was formally defined at Vatican I as follows: “The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra … possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility which the divine redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith and morals” (PA 4). That’s it. “Defining” is all which can ever receive the protection of infallibility — not teaching or preaching or anything else. Popes never can exercise infallibility in any way other than in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.

So for this papal bull you cite to be an “ex cathedra” and “infallible” statement, as you keep claiming, then it must contain a definition of a doctrine of faith and morals — and even then, the infallibility applies only to the actual definition, not to the surrounding text.

So far, online I have found nothing to indicate that any infallible statements at all are contained within “Cantano Domino.” So again I must ask, where did you get the claim that this quotation is “ex cathedra” and “infallible?” What is your source?

The Bull is Ex Cathedra. But, the vital part of being Ex Cathedra is that the Pope is intending to speak as the Universal Head of the Church, hence he is speaking to an audience. Not only must the truth of the Bull be considered, but also the audience to which the Bull is being presented.

First, one must consider what is meant by schismatic in the doctrine.

Secondly, one must consider what is meant by heretic in bull.

Thirdly, one must consider the events in which the Jews he is talking about are being condemned.

Finally, one must consider carefully what is trying to be stated. I can point out two words that prove that this Bull is being intepreted incorrectly.
“that only those remaining within this unity” and
“even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ,”
This two phrases will give someone clear evidence of who Eugene was talking, too.
I will deal with both.
1.)The definition of the word “remain” is to “continue in place or condition.” It must be asked then, how can someone “continue in a place or condition” without having first been in that place or condition.
2.)After the ellaboration on the former, what makes you think that those who refused to “remain” in the Church of Christ, can also pour out their blood in His Name?

It would also help for you to know that Eugene is referring to the Manicheans and the Jews who said that they obviously did not need the Catholic Church…these people were also munipulating the Truth for other Catholics at this time. The Pope is making it clear that those who are not “remaining in this unity can profit from the sacraments.” It is impossible and unlogical to say one can remain in something that you were not in to begin with.

You must also know what a schismatic and heretic is.

The Catechism is infallible because it contains the teachings of the Ordinary Magesterium. There is nothing in the Bull that Contradicts Vatican II, I believe.

This topic has been discussed numerous times and I searched one of the threads that discuss the topic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=94488&highlight=invincible+ignorance

 

[Baraq]

Is this thread still going? really? such foolishness

45 min a week, a lil idolatry, maybe a confession here or there and your in

imagine…Such a deal since Luther got em to cut back on having to pay for relatives stuck in purgatory

 

[Image_of_God]

Now, let’s see the increasing similarity between Lumen Genitum (Vatican II), and Cantate Domino:

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

We have the same word remain once more. It indicates that the person or audience was previously in the Church at one time. The Church continues to retain the same teaching, contrary to what some believe.

 

[Image_of_God]

It would also help for you to know that Eugene is referring to the Manicheans and the Jews who said that they obviously did not need the Catholic Church…these people were also munipulating the Truth for other Catholics at this time. The Pope is making it clear that those who are not “remaining in this unity can profit from the sacraments.” It is impossible and unlogical to say one can remain in something that you were not in to begin with.

This topic has been discussed numerous times and I searched one of the threads that discuss the topic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=94488&highlight=invincible+ignorance

Error!

I meant can {NOT} profit from the sacraments in the above statement.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Hello lambic Pen,

I would not say that the “new” Catechism is false. It is simply different from the previous Catechism. Jesus gave the Apostolic Successors the power to bind and to loost.

So, does the Apostolic Successors’ power to bind and loose apply to all people who have ever lived? In other words, did those who went to Hell, having died for Christ while outside the Church, obtain a release from Hell when the teaching was changed? Or, are they still in Hell, while modern-day Protestants and others have a shot at Heaven?

Is this thread still going?

Yes

really?

Yes

such foolishness

Indeed. But don’t feel too bad about it.

45 min a week, a lil idolatry, maybe a confession here or there and your in

On the other side…an initial confession of faith and you’re in. You make the Catholic way seem so much easier, when it really isn’t. The idolatry reference is unfortunate, but as you study more about Catholicism, you will come to realize the truth of the matter.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who particpated in this discussion.
This thread is now closed.